Sentencing and beyond- JA General Discussion #9

[Hope4More]

Wow! I had no idea that if there were errors made, that she could possibly be free.

Once again, justice system run amok! Killers should not be able to be free because of some errors.

She won't walk free. That just isn't going to happen. If you skim through the Hughes SC ruling, you'll get an idea of just how egregious prosecutorial misconduct must be for an appellate court to overturn a verdict, much less to allow a defendant they know is guilty go free.

The Court doesn't do that for mere "errors" by a prosecutor, not even if he made a lot of them. The Court has to be convinced the prosecutor intentionally chose to act in such bad faith throughout the trial that the defendant had little to no chance of being acquitted.

In this case, her attorneys are arguing that JM's trial strategy was (basically) to attack the CHARACTER of every witness, rather than properly impeaching their testimony, and to attack the DT itself, again on character. Everyone else but him was a liar. Like that, and that's their basis for arguing his "misconduct" was pervasive, and deliberate.

Their argument for pervasive misconduct will fail. The COA may well find individual instances of misconduct this time around, but there's every reason to believe they'll rule the misconduct "harmless error." Harmless because the misconduct didn't deprive the killer of a fair trial.

Theoretically, though. (Take a deep breath. )The killer had a constitutional right to due process and to a fair trial. If the State is going to deprive someone of their liberty, put them on trial, and threaten them with death if they're found guilty, then the State better get it right & do it right.

It simply is not OK or right for the
State to break the law or violate someone's constitutional rights in the process of seeking a conviction.

 

[geevee]

Pervasive, cumalative misconduct: State v. Hughes, etc.
-----------
During oral arguments (and in their brief), killer's attorneys cited 2 AZSC cases as precedent for having her conviction overturned on the basis of egregious prosecutorial misconduct and "cumalative error."

Here's a link to Hughes, one of those 2 cases, and the only known AZSC case that specifies "cumalative error" as grounds for overturning a conviction.

//www.ecases.us/case/ariz/c1405581/state-v-hughes

For those who don't want to plough through the thang, here's a nutshell comparison of the misconduct in that case versus JM's alleged misconduct during the killer's trial (Zawanda prosecuted Hughes).

Zawanda's misconduct is to JM's "misconduct" as a mountain is to an ant hill. As a dictionary is to a single word. Seriously, there really is no reality-based comparison to be made, factually or in the law.

Here's an oversimplified, not-even-summary of the factual case against Zawanda for egregious & intentional & pervasive misconduct.

Hughes shot & killed his sister's BF. Undisputed, ever. How Zawanda handled Hughes' insanity defense was the problem: he refused to acknowledge the possibility Hughes was insane, before and during trial. Zawanda's refusal did indeed permeate every part of the trial.

Even trying to summarize the extent & thoroughness & instances of his misconduct would exhaust me. So I won't.

Just some examples: Zawanda refused to hire expert psych evaluators (pretrial-- several times over, during the long process to find Hughes competent for trial) or expert psych witnesses for trial.

He directly accused the DT and their psych witnesses, at trial & with the jury present, of outright fabricating Hughes' (all too real) mental illness. He opened his case by telling the jury that Hughes was "a mean drunk," and didn't have a lick of mental illness. And Zawanda closed by telling jurors to imagine someone innocently sitting outside on a bench & being murdered by the mean drunk Hughes if they didn't convict him.
----
Not. Even. Close.

Wow, what a farce of a trial, and agree, wildly different behavior of prosecutors and not a good comparison to what JM is accused of. I can see the court (in this case) stating similar in regards to errors:

" This lack of recognition is based on the theory that "something that is not prejudicial error in and of itself does not become such error when coupled with something else that is not prejudicial error."

And:

We reiterate the general rule that several non-errors and harmless errors cannot add up to one reversible error.

I wonder why they didn't ask that double jeopardy attaches in that appeal? And did he go back on trial? I should look that up. lol

 

[Hope4More]

Wow, what a farce of a trial, and agree, wildly different behavior of prosecutors and not a good comparison to what JM is accused of. I can see the court (in this case) stating similar in regards to errors:

" This lack of recognition is based on the theory that "something that is not prejudicial error in and of itself does not become such error when coupled with something else that is not prejudicial error."

And:

We reiterate the general rule that several non-errors and harmless errors cannot add up to one reversible error.

I wonder why they didn't ask that double jeopardy attaches in that appeal? And did he go back on trial? I should look that up. lol

Hughes' conviction was overturned & remanded for retrial. The SC said double jeopardy didn't attach because "he (Hughes) was convicted and is seeking a retrial." (huh?)

The full SC ruling :

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Arizona case and opinions.

In Pool, the other case cited during oral arguments, the SC considered whether or not Pool could be retried after his case ended in a mistrial, or if double jeopardy should attach. The Court ruled Pool couldn't be retried & that double jeopardy attached.

(It was the prosecutor's (the same Zawanda!) egregious & cumulative misconduct that caused the trial judge to declare a mistrial).

 

[Hope4More]

Next.......

Judge Campbell seems to be the lead judge of the "J" panel reviewing the killer's appeal. She said at orals the panel had already reviewed the entire court record; she's already assigned the task of writing up the ruling (memo or opinion) to either Judge Brown or Judge Jones.

The panel typically rules on an appeal during their weekly conference, the same day oral arguments are heard. So....they've already decided whether or not to deny the killer's appeal.

Next, Brown or Jones will write up a draft of the ruling. Given the trial record's length, that writing is going to take awhile.

Next, the draft goes to the other 2 panel judges for review, suggestions, additions, etc. If all 3 judges concur on the overall ruling and each element within, and that the appeal requires a simple straight up or down decision, the principal author will finalize the ruling. It gets issued as a memo, and all done.

If the panel agrees the appeal raises a "new" legal issue, or they want to use her appeal to set precedent on a specific legal issue, the principal author will write an opinion, not a memo.

If they decide on an opinion, not a straight forward memo, the process will take much longer. Writing the opinion will involve additional legal research, and each of the 3 panel judges will likely involve themselves more thoroughly in the wtiting.

And....after a DRAFT opinion is written, it would be sent to every single COA judge for their evaluation, review, and suggestions.

(If anyone wants to read more about the process, it's described in the COA's annual report for 2018, linked to their home page).

Home

 

[casesensitive]

I think the only reason for appeal that even comes close for the judges giving any thought is JM's behavior. IMO the judges pretty well discounted the other reasons. The fact that JM was accused of misconduct in the past, and the obvious concern of his conduct in the Arias trial is their only consideration. The appeal judges would be remiss in not acknowledging his improper behavior in the court room.

IMO they dissed JM, as apparently they should have, and JA will be denied and will remain in her cell for the rest of her life. I'm not worried in the least at the appellant ruling.

 

[Weki]

New sexual harassment complaint filed against Juan Martinez

Apparently, a new sexual harassment claim has been filed against JM in the last 30 days and he's been removed from the Saucedo prosecution.

Well.....I believe he had a relationship with that blogger. I read the complaint on that a while ago and it sounded credible to me. I see no reason why her ex-husband would make it up. I also believe he's harassed women in his office. I see no reason why these women would just make it up. His conduct in the courtroom was abrasive and hostile and you don't go from that behavior in the courtroom to being a gentleman when you go back to the office. The fact that he worked alone may also be an indication that he's not a team player and no one likes working with him. It also explains why he was so disorganized. He knew all the facts but he meandered/got lost in the weeds a lot. Lost perspective. Apparently, he had co-counsel assigned on the Saucedo case with him as the lead and now that co-counsel is going to be lead.

Anyway, he brought this all on himself. I don't feel sorry for him. I don't think it was just the JA case. I've watched that cop trial he did and he was just as abrasive on that trial.

 

[Hope4More]

New sexual harassment complaint filed against Juan Martinez

Apparently, a new sexual harassment claim has been filed against JM in the last 30 days and he's been removed from the Saucedo prosecution.

Well.....I believe he had a relationship with that blogger. I read the complaint on that a while ago and it sounded credible to me. I see no reason why her ex-husband would make it up. I also believe he's harassed women in his office. I see no reason why these women would just make it up. His conduct in the courtroom was abrasive and hostile and you don't go from that behavior in the courtroom to being a gentleman when you go back to the offi hice. The fact that he worked alone may also be an indication that he's not a team player and no one likes working with him. It also explains why he was so disorganized. He knew all the facts but he meandered/got lost in the weeds a lot. Lost perspective. Apparently, he had co-counsel assigned on the Saucedo case with him as the lead and now that co-counsel is going to be lead.

Anyway, he brought this all on himself. I don't feel sorry for him. I don't think it was just the JA case. I've watched that cop trial he did and he was just as abrasive on that trial.

1. You don't see any reason why JW's ex-husband would lie about his ex-wife having an alleged "affair"?

If you want to get a better idea of who Clarke the ex is & his utter lack of credibility, read the interview he had with Karen Clarke, the ethically challenged "ethics" attorney. The mind boggles.

2. It isn't the job of the AZ bar serve to police attorneys' morality. Having an "affair," even if an unmarried JM did, is none of the Bar's business, and it's outrageous IMO that Clarke feels justified in slinging this kind of extraneous muck.

3. Most of the sexual harassment allegations against JM have been dismissed. What Kieffer once described as sexual harassment charges that JM was disciplined for by MCAO weren't in fact related to sexual harassment at all.

4. JM works alone by choice, in part because he finds going solo makes it easier to strategize on the fly at trial. "Disorganized, meandering, lost in the weeds" are so far off base IMO that I'll just pass.

5. JM's record speaks for itself. He is an extremely effective prosecutor. His success at winning DP cases is exactly what has made him a target, and why AZ's defense bar has tried to take him down for many years.

This latest round of attack against JM is definitely the most fierce & sustained. All manner of peeps & orgs are piling on. I'm an unwavering advocate for the ACLU, but I've read their brief to the Bar justifying their intervention in JM's bar complaint process. For starters, it's disappointingly inaccurate on the facts.

Their intervention is transparently as much about their anti-DP crusade as it is about a general condemnation of MCAO. Only secondarily and inaccurately is it about JM.

6. I'd be the first in line to condemn JM if I believed he had abused the power of the State to secure her conviction. I'm wary of State power in general. I also actually believe in & feel strongly about those constitutional "notions"of innocent before proven guilty & due process.

I would also find it unforgivable if JM did anything to jeopardize her conviction.

The trial record doesn't support the allegations that he did. What he does in his private life is irrelevant. His aggressive trial style alienates a whole bunch of peeps, but the only peeps' opinions that matter are those of his juries (see trial win record) and the Bar (one single actual finding of misconduct for one single infraction over his entire career up to this trial).

 

[DidIAskYou]

1. You don't see any reason why JW's ex-husband would lie about his ex-wife having an alleged "affair"?

If you want to get a better idea of who Clarke the ex is & his utter lack of credibility, read the interview he had with Karen Clarke, the ethically challenged "ethics" attorney. The mind boggles.

2. It isn't the job of the AZ bar serve to police attorneys' morality. Having an "affair," even if an unmarried JM did, is none of the Bar's business, and it's outrageous IMO that Clarke feels justified in slinging this kind of extraneous muck.

3. Most of the sexual harassment allegations against JM have been dismissed. What Kieffer once described as sexual harassment charges that JM was disciplined for by MCAO weren't in fact related to sexual harassment at all.

4. JM works alone by choice, in part because he finds going solo makes it easier to strategize on the fly at trial. "Disorganized, meandering, lost in the weeds" are so far off base IMO that I'll just pass.

5. JM's record speaks for itself. He is an extremely effective prosecutor. His success at winning DP cases is exactly what has made him a target, and why AZ's defense bar has tried to take him down for many years.

This latest round of attack against JM is definitely the most fierce & sustained. All manner of peeps & orgs are piling on. I'm an unwavering advocate for the ACLU, but I've read their brief to the Bar justifying their intervention in JM's bar complaint process. For starters, it's disappointingly inaccurate on the facts.

Their intervention is transparently as much about their anti-DP crusade as it is about a general condemnation of MCAO. Only secondarily and inaccurately is it about JM.

6. I'd be the first in line to condemn JM if I believed he had abused the power of the State to secure her conviction. I'm wary of State power in general. I also actually believe in & feel strongly about those constitutional "notions"of innocent before proven guilty & due process.

I would also find it unforgivable if JM did anything to jeopardize her conviction.

The trial record doesn't support the allegations that he did. What he does in his private life is irrelevant. His aggressive trial style alienates a whole bunch of peeps, but the only peeps' opinions that matter are those of his juries (see trial win record) and the Bar (one single actual finding of misconduct for one single infraction over his entire career up to this trial).

Thank you for this post and for all you've done in this case. I've watched the entire trial through several times. JM's aggressive style was absolutely required by the recalcitrant approach of Samuels and LaViolette. Judge Stephens even went on the record once in open court to say that JM's questioning of LaV in chambers, which Nurmi had challenged, was appropriate. I'm not one of those who think JM can do no wrong. But there is absolutely no basis for vacating this conviction. As Jodi would say, "Mark my words." The appeals court will affirm.

 

[Weki]

Yeah I don't expect people on this board to agree with my opinions about JM. I understand that many people who watched the JA trial feel like his approach was warranted. Largely the consensus seems to be that that was the only way to deal with LaViolette, Samuels and JA herself. I completely disagree with this view!

The fact of the matter is that the conduct or attitudes of the defendant/defense experts in this case were NOT substantially different from any other high profile case! And I've seen prosecutors get the job done with less time and less histrionics.

The fact of the matter is that a female defendant claiming battered woman is nothing new. It's also not new for a defendant to drag a victim through the mud. It's nothing new for defense experts to make outlandish assessments that are not supported by fact. It's nothing new for defense experts to be evasive and misleading. Even JM himself has said this case was nothing special. There is literally nothing about the facts of this case that should've required so much drama and time.

Re the sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct allegations, the perspective seems to be that everyone is out to get JM. He's just a great prosecutor doing his job and they're gunning for him for political reasons. I don't pretend to know the politics in Arizona - I don't live there. But surely no one thinks all these people are out to get him because of their love and support for the killer, Jodi Arias? I think his conduct during the trial was unnecessarily over the top & unprofessional in several areas. I think it's quite possible he's disrespectful and harassing in the office. I don't know for sure but it's possible. I'm not going to dismiss the allegations just like I won't assume they're all true. And many of you are arguing that you don't think he can do no wrong but you vehemently argue against all criticism of him and dismiss all allegations as false and defamatory. So you do think he can do no wrong then!

 

[pocketaccent]

1. You don't see any reason why JW's ex-husband would lie about his ex-wife having an alleged "affair"?

If you want to get a better idea of who Clarke the ex is & his utter lack of credibility, read the interview he had with Karen Clarke, the ethically challenged "ethics" attorney. The mind boggles.

2. It isn't the job of the AZ bar serve to police attorneys' morality. Having an "affair," even if an unmarried JM did, is none of the Bar's business, and it's outrageous IMO that Clarke feels justified in slinging this kind of extraneous muck.

3. Most of the sexual harassment allegations against JM have been dismissed. What Kieffer once described as sexual harassment charges that JM was disciplined for by MCAO weren't in fact related to sexual harassment at all.

4. JM works alone by choice, in part because he finds going solo makes it easier to strategize on the fly at trial. "Disorganized, meandering, lost in the weeds" are so far off base IMO that I'll just pass.

5. JM's record speaks for itself. He is an extremely effective prosecutor. His success at winning DP cases is exactly what has made him a target, and why AZ's defense bar has tried to take him down for many years.

This latest round of attack against JM is definitely the most fierce & sustained. All manner of peeps & orgs are piling on. I'm an unwavering advocate for the ACLU, but I've read their brief to the Bar justifying their intervention in JM's bar complaint process. For starters, it's disappointingly inaccurate on the facts.

Their intervention is transparently as much about their anti-DP crusade as it is about a general condemnation of MCAO. Only secondarily and inaccurately is it about JM.

6. I'd be the first in line to condemn JM if I believed he had abused the power of the State to secure her conviction. I'm wary of State power in general. I also actually believe in & feel strongly about those constitutional "notions"of innocent before proven guilty & due process.

I would also find it unforgivable if JM did anything to jeopardize her conviction.

The trial record doesn't support the allegations that he did. What he does in his private life is irrelevant. His aggressive trial style alienates a whole bunch of peeps, but the only peeps' opinions that matter are those of his juries (see trial win record) and the Bar (one single actual finding of misconduct for one single infraction over his entire career up to this trial).

I agree with your opinions.
And just wanted to add this-
Was JM disorganized in prosecuting this case? NO

JM, during one of his interviews after the trial, said that he had to 'meander' with his questions to JA and to defense's experts in order to catch them off guard, so he could reveal truths out of so many lies and false information thrown around by them.

To some people, JM's strategy may have looked upon as disorganized, wasting time, lost in the weeds but I disagree. His strategy worked perfectly in this case.

 

[Xanadude]

Three more completely off topic questions:
1) How do you think Jodi had access to money 2006-2008?
We know she maxxed credit cards, 'borrowed' cash from whomever and lived a grifter lifestyle till she was arrested. One source speculates that she engaged in escort-type sex work when she was desperate for cash, which makes sense to me.
2) Jodi was an utter parasite to members of the opposite sex. I find it hard to believe that she hooked up only with Bobby, Matt and Darryl. Did she pursue other marks, or were other men too turned off by her personality before she got a chance to stalk them?
3) I've known my share of people like Jodi whose talons had a grip that wouldn't let go. Invariably, they trapped their prey with a pregnancy. I've been mildly surprised that she never used this tactic. Possible sterility?

I apologize if answers to these type of random questions have already been handled elsewhere on Websleuths. I was drawn back to this weirdly fascinating-for-so-many-reasons case after forgetting about it in 2015. My point of view has changed. I didn't understand her motive for killing Travis then, but now I better understand the scope of psychotic behavior. And I believe if she hadn't killed Travis, her victim would have been someone else.

 

[Hope4More]

(snipped)

Re the sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct allegations, the perspective seems to be that everyone is out to get JM. He's just a great prosecutor doing his job and they're gunning for him for political reasons. I don't pretend to know the politics in Arizona - I don't live there. But surely no one thinks all these people are out to get him because of their love and support for the killer, Jodi Arias?
--------
There is literally nothing about the facts of this case that should've required so much drama and time.

Have I mentioned I've literally researched & written the equivalent of a PhD dissertation on this trial? Including a chapter on yep, the politics in AZ which made key aspects of this trial & post-trial virtually inevitable. One doesn't need to live in Arizona to understand how and why that is true.

Here is one example of how politics had an impact on her trial, and one reason the trial was overly long. I wrote & posted this a long while ago in the Appeals came thread here. It relates to why a private lead defense atty (Nurmi) came to be assigned her trial. Her trial would have been much shorter and a great deal less messy had she been represented by an all public DT.

--------------------------------------------------
Background Info for case: 2009 and 2010 .


Maricopa County DP case overload and reform & Political warfare -fallout from the tenure of Andy Thomas, Maricopa County Attorney (Bill Montgomery's predecessor), 2004-2010.


DP Case Overload

The decision to charge CMJA with capital murder was made by Maricopa County Attorney Andy Thomas in October 2008. Thomas was elected MCA in 2004. By 2007, Thomas’ zealousness in seeking the DP, coupled with the fact DP cases in AZ were increasingly taking longer to bring to trial (in part due to lengthier mitigation investigations) had increased the number of pending DP cases in Maricopa County significantly enough for the AZC to consider the trial backlog a system-wide Court crisis.

An Oversight Committee was formed in 2007 to analyze the problem and to suggest reforms. Some components the Committee) and outside sources identified as contributing to the backlog included a shortage of DP- qualified judges and an overly lenient granting of trial continuances.

Oversight committee reports:

Capital Case Oversight Committee.

Outside observers noted that private practice defense attorneys benefitted from the backlog. Desperate to prevent trial postponements from becoming so lengthy as to become an issue for appeals, the Superior Court not infrequently resorted to private defense attorneys to try capital cases, paying the attorneys up to 3x more per hour than their public counterparts.


Reform. On March 5, 2009, Presiding Superior Court Judge Donahoe announced reforms intended to help with the backlog of capital cases. Reforms included: enforcing the rule of 18 months from arraignment to trial (changed to 24 months in 2010); certifying all 26 MCSC judges as DP qualified, requiring DP defendants to undergo IQ and competency screenings (to prevent mitigation-related overturns on appeal); and requiring continuances to be heard by the presiding judge.

((Capital case Mitigation Masters were instituted by administrative order in 2007 to help streamline capital case pre-trial. Ex parte hearings with DT were standard. This system ceased in early 2009, and all MM’s were relieved of their duties, as it was found to be too costly, ineffective, and problematic because the ex-parte hearings conflicted with AZ’s victim rights statutes.
============================================
The Politics

Presiding MCSC Judge Gary Donahoe ordered CMJA’s trial date reset in November, 2009, just days after Judge Duncan had denied the DT’s request for a continuance.

One month later, in December, 2009, Judge Donahoe was targeted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Thomas in a federal civil racketeering suit. One of the attorneys involved in that matter also accused Judge D. of bribery and obstruction of justice.

The charges against Donahoe were bogus. In February, 2010, a Pima County Judge appointed by Special Master McGregor ruled that Thomas had acted unethically, and had undertaken prosecutions for political gain and retaliation.

As a result of that ruling, in March 2010 the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, at the request of the State Bar of Arizona, appointed a special investigator to look into accusations of misconduct against Thomas.

A disciplinary panel of the Arizona courts ruled that Mr. Thomas and an assistant prosecutor broke criminal intimidation and perjury laws in knowingly bringing false bribery charges. The panel ruled that the evidence suggested that Sheriff Arpaio and one of his aides conspired with the two prosecutors. Thomas and his sidekick assistant prosecutor were disbarred in 2012.

Even though he had essentially been fully exonerated, Judge Donahoe stepped down as presiding Superior Court Judge in early April, 2010.

A full book length account of it all in the AZ Supreme Court rulings against Thomas:
Thomas Aubuchon Alexander_opinion | Virtue | Government Information

 

[Hope4More]

[QUOTE="Weki, post: 15516147, member: 251712"]
Re the sexual harassment and unprofessional conduct allegations, the perspective seems to be that everyone is out to get JM.(snipped) I think it's quite possible he's disrespectful and harassing in the office. I don't know for sure but it's possible. I'm not going to dismiss the allegations just like I won't assume they're all true.![/QUOTE]

Thing is......there are facts to be known, and not just opinions to be offered. Many here, actually, including myself, were dismayed by the sexual harassment allegations against JM included in Karen the Unethical's bar complaint against JM, sponsored by TA's killer.

Which is why I read: the entire (incredibly poorly written) complaint, including every single index attached (100's of pages); every single available article that had been written on the subjects within; every single press release issued by Montgomery/MCAO, and all the AZ case law relating to the releasing of public records.

I read it all and dissected most of it in minute, no doubt agonizing -to- most- peeps detail, awhile ago & way earlier in this same thread.

Here's a relevant piece of the dissection:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EASIEST & BRIEFEST EXAMPLE OF THE BIAS, DISORTIONS & INACCURACIES IN KAREN CLARK’S (KC) (THE “ETHICS” ATTORNEY) BAR COMPLAINTS AGAINST JM.


KC alleges that JM had affairs with Jennifer Wood and Katie Wick, had sexualized conversations with dismissed PP2 juror #3 (Melissa Garcia), and that he “sexually harassed” Sheree Ruiz (with Jennifer Wood, the “Trial Divas”).

Perhaps because KC knew she lacks direct evidence of any of these allegations, she tried to support her narrative that JM is a serial and long-term sexual user & abuser of women by selectively quoting from JM’s personnel files she compelled MCAO (Maricopa County Attorneys Office) to turn over.

-------------------------------------

Here is what KC wrote in her (February 2018) appeal of the Bar’s dismissal of her Bar Complaint:

“MCAO has disciplined (JM) before for improper sexual conduct. He was first given a warning and counseled by his superiors for improper actions towards female staff. The warning(...) ‘his judgment on matters relating to his conduct and personal relationships with other employees, particularly some females, has been called into question on a couple of occasions.’

He was counseled and told that his conduct with female employees was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was told that his conduct appeared unprofessional and was inappropriate in the office.”

The following year, (JM) repeated his misconduct by making an inappropriate sexual remark towards a female attorney in his office. The conduct was reported (and it was determined) that the warning given to him the previous year had not been sufficient.

They took the next step by issuing him a formal written reprimand that was placed in his personal file. His supervisor stated that “it is now time that this behavior cease once and for all. “The supervisor concluded “there will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”

---------------------------
REALITY CHECK.

Unforgivably, really, IMO, the related portion of JM’s personnel file has been made public by KC’s attaching it as an appendix to her 2018 appeal.

The selective excerpts KC used are from 2 separate documents in JM’s personnel file. The first doc is indeed a letter of reprimand, written by the supervisor of JM’s supervisor. The basis for the reprimand is the 2nd incident below, that had occurred in 1991.

The second doc is attached to the letter of reprimand and is a portion of JM’s (otherwise absolutely glowing) annual performance review.


Here, quoted from those docs, is what ethics attorney Karen Clark didn’t include in her excerpts about JM’s “improper sexual conduct” at MCAO:

JM’s supervisor, in JM’s performance review:

“In November 1990, Juan was counselled regarding the amount of time he spent with female employees in his office. He was told that the appearance created by the extent of the contact he was having was inappropriate for a professional law office. He was also told that since the female employees were secretaries, it was interfering with their productivity, and thus it was adversely affecting other attorneys as well.

After being told such contact appeared unprofessional and inappropriate in the office, Juan immediately acted to stop it.”
(…..)
“Another cause for counselling arose in March 1991, when a female employee was offended by a remark Juan made to her. It is unlikely that any comment he made was intended to offend anyone, however, Juan’s judgment in using words that could, even remotely, offend someone was not good.”

“Juan needs to exercise good judgement and be sensitive to the fact that there are always unintended possible consequences of remarks that are not thought out, or that are inappropriate in a professional environment.

I believe that Juan will be successful in modifying his conduct in regards to specific problem areas. I am also hopeful that Juan will learn from these experiences and go beyond mere modification of conduct. There will always be potential for problems until JM can exercise the proper judgment, attitude and approach towards dealing with others, especially in a professional setting. When he understands why these things are not appropriate, he will no longer be in danger of doing them.”

---------
So….and, really?? The only “dirt” KC could mine from JM’s decades of work at MCAO is that 28 years ago JM spent too much time talking with secretaries, and that 27 years ago he said something to a female attorney that she found offensive, even though JM’s supervisor doubted that JM intended to be offensive.

And… this is what she offers as “evidence” that JM has a long history of “improper sexual conduct.”

 

[Hope4More]

The interview by Karen the Unethical's interview with the "blogger's" ex-husband.
(Copying from my original post (#160) in this thread).


KC’s interview with Clark Wood, Jennifer Woods’ ex-husband, and the witness KC tells the Bar in her appeal letter who will corroborate Rose’s testimony that JM outed 17 to Wood on the night of March 3 , and on the same night, asked for her help finding dirt on 17.

(Note: the transcript of this interview is difficult to read, it is that pathetical & awful).


KC: are you aware of her helping JM on either of those two nights that the holdout juror was holding out before the mistrial was declared? Are you aware of any work she was doing for him related to that?

CW:” I don’t know this—I know what was going on and that’s what was going on. And whatever she-you know, I -I don’t know what she was doing. But yeah, she was involved. She was, you know, all with that. I just remember saying to her later, it’s like, you know, what if that girl would have voted yes? It was a lady, right?”

We wouldn’t be talking about what we’re talking about now, we’d be talking about attempted murder. “You’re trying to get somebody killed that you know doesn’t -you know. I’m sorry. I use bad words because I don’t know the law. I don’t do legal speak. That’s why I have to be careful, because I tell the truth. And that gets me in trouble, and I can’t-I can’t get in trouble over these cockroaches. “

Ralph: can you explain to me what you mean by attempted murder?

CW: “Well, if you’re falsifying information and you’re doing the things the court has accused them, or him, of doing to try to get somebody put to death so you can get on TV and write a book and make profit, I know… Let me retract that word murder because it’s not used in court.

In a non-court situation when somebody is trying to get someone killed and falsifying and lying and committing perjury and trying to get someone killed for their profit, that’s the-that’s the sum that I come with in the end.”

Ralph. OK. That helps me understand what you are thinking.

Ralph: can you tell me more about what you said, you know, about them committing perjury, lying, things like that? What were they doing?

CW: “Well, they were definitely-when she was accused of leaking the juror’s name and the covering up of the-accusation covering up evidence. And just generally not-I mean, come on-I saw enough on TV to know that girl (***) had some problems. And everyone knows that boy exploited her problems. And then what they put on TV, why let it go? Because you got naked pictures of her. Nobody else would have got drug through all that without the naked pictures and all that smut that just-you know.”

KC: I need to bring you back (Note: I bet, LOL).

CW: (Keeps rambling on and on, finishing up with his opinion that the judge wouldn’t have allowed “it” (who knows)” if there wasn’t a media payoff in the end”).

KC: (Moves on to Tammy Rose, and Rose’s account of JM outing 17 to Wood the night of the 3rd, that Wood asked for Rose’s help around 5 or 6 PM, and then, that Wood spent hours into the evening doing research, until after 10PM.)

KC asks CW-is this your knowledge of what happened that night?

CW: (stutters out multiple partial sentences of vague, general, nonresponsive words, but in between, says: )

“The specifics of what she was doing, I don’t know. But it was an issue, and the, you know, it just kept -that was the issue, the holdout juror. And yeah, she was arguing about the holdout juror and this and that, and I don’t know the specifics of what she was doing, but yeah, the holdout juror kept going around and around in that conversation. And somehow was a big-that’s when they all-you know, her and Tammy Rose and everybody, there was a big blowup. “

“And that’s what Tammy told me. (..) But I don’t know specifics. But I know they were working on that-the holdout juror. And that’s when they came back and said no.”

KC tries one last time: “So are you saying it’s your memory that-- I know you don’t know the specifics of what she was doing, and at the time you didn’t know it was improper. But do you know that at that time she was making efforts to research 17, and that she was doing that to help JM?"

CW: “Yeah. I can’t say the extent of the research, I mean, she was up and working, and that was the issue. But I didn’t look into her research on that or know how far she went with it, but-I don’t know about the date.”

“But when that was going on , with the holdout juror, she was staying up and doing a lot of stuff. I didn’t follow her to see exactly what she was doing, but she was somehow-yeah, there was a lot of conversation and a lot of work going on. And I-you know. By that time she had started going down to the Safeways and using other computers. I think she used my son’s laptop a lot. And there were a lot of texts going on that I didn’t look into.”

(..) “I mean, when everyone standing there is telling you that, I mean, the forest for the trees, you don’t actually go out into the forest and inspect the tree. Yeah, no reason not to believe what people are telling you. And yeah, that’s what they were telling me, and it seemed to be what was going on at the time, and you know.”

“I was down at the hospital with my mother. I wasn’t really dealing with that. “ (Note: he wasn’t even in the house on March 3??)

"And by that time she was bragging she was helping him with his book and stuff. But about this holdout juror-they were all arguing…I really didn’t get involved. I mean, everything she is saying is a lie.”
-------------------------------------------
(((Dear lord. Can you imagine (the entirely theoretical situation of) Clark Wood surviving one minute on the stand anywhere, much less being cross examined by an even dim-witted attorney, much less by anyone JM hired to represent him? ))

 

[Hope4More]

My replies in bold....

"Weki, post: 15516147, member: 251712"]Yeah I don't expect people on this board to agree with my opinions about JM.

Plenty of peeps on this board didn't like JM's aggressive style. Did you follow the trial here? It's probably accurate that most of the 0.5% original trial watcher/posters still active here are fine with JM's style, but even that isn't certain, since there are always more reading but not posting peeps than otherwise. In any case, subjective opinions about subjective matters like prosecutorial style are.....subjective.

The fact of the matter is that the conduct or attitudes of the defendant/defense experts in this case were NOT substantially different from any other high profile case!

That's also a subjective opinion, but on a not entirely subjective matter. LaViolette's conduct in particular was atypically awful, actually, both on & off the stand. Even Nurmi conceded that point. He all but laid the blame on LaVa's substandard qualifications & testimony for his "losing" the trial.

It's also not new for a defendant to drag a victim through the mud.

True enough, though it takes a particularly malignant defendant to accuse the man she slaughtered of pedophilia. IMO.

Even JM himself has said this case was nothing special.

That's not accurate. He said just the opposite about the case/trial as a whole. And in his book, JM wrote extensively about how atypical was the killer-defendant, especially on the stand. He wrote that even early on he was quite concerned she might succeed in convincing a jury that TA "deserved" to be killed. That her fearlessness in telling serial lies, and her ability to seamlessly conjure up new lies on the spot when caught in a lie, made her the most "formidable" defendant he had ever crossed at trial.

There is literally nothing about the facts of this case that should've required so much drama and time.

See post about how Nurmi being on as private atty contributed to both drama & an overly prolonged trial. Then toss in a point we agree upon- a judge who didn't have control over her courtroom. In large part because she lacked DP trial experience and became increasingly uncertain of herself, certainly within a week of the first penalty mistrial.


The perspective seems to be that everyone is out to get JM. ..But surely no one thinks all these people are out to get him because of their love and support for the killer, Jodi Arias?

Everyone IS out to get JM, lol, and their pursuit of him has zero to do one way or another with the killer.

Have you read the standing bar complaint? And the previous ones? And who, before the killer related complaint, made accusations about JM to the Bar?

It's a fact the defense bar loathes JM & have been in pursuit of him for years. Part of their antipathy for him is generic, and even understandable, from their perspective. MCAO has a long and sordid history of misconduct and tolerating misconduct. The past 2 DA's, at least, have also had political agendas that are anathema to the defense bar and to civil rights groups, including the ACLU. JM is one of MCAO's star attorneys. Attack the one to go after the whole. Nothing new or unusual about that strategy.

I give the defense bar as a whole, though there are definitely exceptions, the benefit of the doubt that they are also genuinely offended by JM's aggressiveness at trial, and not just as related to how he handles witnesses. It doesn't help that JM has kicked DT arses at every turn.

And many of you are arguing that you don't think he can do no wrong but you vehemently argue against all criticism of him and dismiss all allegations as false and defamatory. So you do think he can do no wrong then!

Nah. Speaking for myself, I haven't "vehemently argued against all criticism of him." You disapprove of his style. I like his style. I believe we both agreed to disagree on our opinions of his style?

I've also said, explicitly, that I don't believe JM was the only attorney in AZ who could have convicted her, nor that his style was the only approach that could have succeeded.

Otherwise. I've read literally every bit of everything available
relating to the trials, her appeals, Karen's suit against Nurmi and the bar charges against JM. Every trial minute, docket notation, & original motion, and every original COA document, ruling & brief.

I have opinions which are just and only that. But I also have enough knowledge of the actual facts about the this's and that's to yes, dismiss allegations as false when I know the allegations aren't supported by fact. And back to personal opinion, to find factually untrue allegations against JM not just derogatory, but when made by an "ethics" attorney, nothing short of outrageous.


[/QUOTE]

 

[Weki]

I've watched several interviews of JM and he's said he doesn't get why this case got special attention. The only thing that stood out to him was her small physical stature after seeing the crime scene and understanding the brutality of the murder. In fact, he cited a couple other cases that he said stand out to him in his career as being far more interesting. And he mentioned one case with a Mormon married couple where the husband convinced the wife that God wanted her to throw herself off a cliff or something like that, which I found fascinating.

As for his book, I read it and it was pretty boring. If you watched the trial then there's nothing to glean from the book. I don't remember specifics since it's been a few years but he probably exaggerated things about JA to sensationalize and sell his book. He knows people were enthralled with this case and with JA so he was capitalizing on that by even writing a book. I remember towards the end of the book feeling like he was getting bored with it himself and like he rushed to get it over with.

His whole demeanor was very muted during his book tour interviews. He was like a church mouse. He tried to downplay his combative courtroom style - I got the sense that the book tour handily served as PR to rehabilitate his image. I believe he got a lot of criticism from other lawyers/talking heads. He tried to downplay that too like he didn't care but I didn't believe him. I think it bothered him because I think he's got a healthy dose of narcissism himself. He came off disingenuous and very controlled during his interviews, which was disappointing. If you wanna be a cowboy, then be a proud cowboy darn-it!

I can understand defense lawyers not liking him. I'm sure he's equally hostile towards them behind closed doors when it comes to handing off evidence, depositions, and the like.

I think JM's handling of cross examination showed a lack of insight into the psychological make up of a borderline/narcissistic personality. Now don't get me wrong, he had his moments during cross. And his opening/closing arguments are one of the best I've seen. But he seemed to be personally insulted by JA's lies and evasiveness. He lost control during his cross many times. He should've asked her only yes or no questions and boxed her in but that would require more organization/prep, which I guess he doesn't have time for since he spends most of his time chasing secretaries! If he was in fact concerned that JA was going to best him and hypnotize the jury to be on her side, then he must've really lost perspective.

Re the harassment allegations, I don't discount them at all. Based on what I read and based on what I've seen of his conduct throughout the trial, it's entirely plausible. And I do believe he was having a fling with that blogger! I've read the complaint. He had become a mini-celebrity and that comes with a lot of perks and I have no doubt he took full advantage. lol

 

[Hope4More]

I've watched several interviews of JM and he's said he doesn't get why this case got special attention. The only thing that stood out to him was her small physical stature after seeing the crime scene and understanding the brutality of the murder. In fact, he cited a couple other cases that he said stand out to him in his career as being far more interesting. And he mentioned one case with a Mormon married couple where the husband convinced the wife that God wanted her to throw herself off a cliff or something like that, which I found fascinating.

As for his book, I read it and it was pretty boring. If you watched the trial then there's nothing to glean from the book. I don't remember specifics since it's been a few years but he probably exaggerated things about JA to sensationalize and sell his book. He knows people were enthralled with this case and with JA so he was capitalizing on that by even writing a book. I remember towards the end of the book feeling like he was getting bored with it himself and like he rushed to get it over with.

His whole demeanor was very muted during his book tour interviews. He was like a church mouse. He tried to downplay his combative courtroom style - I got the sense that the book tour handily served as PR to rehabilitate his image. I believe he got a lot of criticism from other lawyers/talking heads. He tried to downplay that too like he didn't care but I didn't believe him. I think it bothered him because I think he's got a healthy dose of narcissism himself. He came off disingenuous and very controlled during his interviews, which was disappointing. If you wanna be a cowboy, then be a proud cowboy darn-it!

I can understand defense lawyers not liking him. I'm sure he's equally hostile towards them behind closed doors when it comes to handing off evidence, depositions, and the like.

I think JM's handling of cross examination showed a lack of insight into the psychological make up of a borderline/narcissistic personality. Now don't get me wrong, he had his moments during cross. And his opening/closing arguments are one of the best I've seen. But he seemed to be personally insulted by JA's lies and evasiveness. He lost control during his cross many times. He should've asked her only yes or no questions and boxed her in but that would require more organization/prep, which I guess he doesn't have time for since he spends most of his time chasing secretaries! If he was in fact concerned that JA was going to best him and hypnotize the jury to be on her side, then he must've really lost perspective.

Re the harassment allegations, I don't discount them at all. Based on what I read and based on what I've seen of his conduct throughout the trial, it's entirely plausible. And I do believe he was having a fling with that blogger! I've read the complaint. He had become a mini-celebrity and that comes with a lot of perks and I have no doubt he took full advantage. lol

You seem to have an across the board, active dislike & mistrust of JM, not just criticism about his courtroom style. To each her own, but outta here, since there's no discussion to be had about facts, not opinion.

 

[Weki]

I really wish I had watched this case live and been part of the discussions on here. There was so much to dissect. I only came into this case much later. I know I'm pretty late to the party! I did scroll through some of the discussions on this board. I particularly found that one theory that I mentioned before to be quite incisive. Obviously, I was mistaken about who came up with that theory. I don't have the time to go back and find it now and find the member. But it really blew me away with how accurate it seemed!

 

[RickshawFan]

Three more completely off topic questions:

3) I've known my share of people like Jodi whose talons had a grip that wouldn't let go. Invariably, they trapped their prey with a pregnancy. I've been mildly surprised that she never used this tactic. Possible sterility?

IIRC TA and JA only had vaginal sex once. I could see JA preferring an "immaculate conception" varietal. We also have no way of knowing IMO whether part of her hold on TA was to threaten him with having an abortion, his or someone else's she claimed was his.

 

[DidIAskYou]

I've watched several interviews of JM and he's said he doesn't get why this case got special attention. The only thing that stood out to him was her small physical stature after seeing the crime scene and understanding the brutality of the murder. In fact, he cited a couple other cases that he said stand out to him in his career as being far more interesting. And he mentioned one case with a Mormon married couple where the husband convinced the wife that God wanted her to throw herself off a cliff or something like that, which I found fascinating.

As for his book, I read it and it was pretty boring. If you watched the trial then there's nothing to glean from the book. I don't remember specifics since it's been a few years but he probably exaggerated things about JA to sensationalize and sell his book. He knows people were enthralled with this case and with JA so he was capitalizing on that by even writing a book. I remember towards the end of the book feeling like he was getting bored with it himself and like he rushed to get it over with.

His whole demeanor was very muted during his book tour interviews. He was like a church mouse. He tried to downplay his combative courtroom style - I got the sense that the book tour handily served as PR to rehabilitate his image. I believe he got a lot of criticism from other lawyers/talking heads. He tried to downplay that too like he didn't care but I didn't believe him. I think it bothered him because I think he's got a healthy dose of narcissism himself. He came off disingenuous and very controlled during his interviews, which was disappointing. If you wanna be a cowboy, then be a proud cowboy darn-it!

I can understand defense lawyers not liking him. I'm sure he's equally hostile towards them behind closed doors when it comes to handing off evidence, depositions, and the like.

I think JM's handling of cross examination showed a lack of insight into the psychological make up of a borderline/narcissistic personality. Now don't get me wrong, he had his moments during cross. And his opening/closing arguments are one of the best I've seen. But he seemed to be personally insulted by JA's lies and evasiveness. He lost control during his cross many times. He should've asked her only yes or no questions and boxed her in but that would require more organization/prep, which I guess he doesn't have time for since he spends most of his time chasing secretaries! If he was in fact concerned that JA was going to best him and hypnotize the jury to be on her side, then he must've really lost perspective.

Re the harassment allegations, I don't discount them at all. Based on what I read and based on what I've seen of his conduct throughout the trial, it's entirely plausible. And I do believe he was having a fling with that blogger! I've read the complaint. He had become a mini-celebrity and that comes with a lot of perks and I have no doubt he took full advantage. lol

I agree that JM was surprisingly soft-spoken and subdued on his book tour, but I didn’t find it at all phony, not like Jodi’s sickening sweetness in her early interviews. I think JM is a performer in court, and many dynamic performers come off as shy in person.


Earlier after I said I didn’t think JM could do no wrong but then defended him, you rightly questioned whether some of us just say that for the record but really do think he can do no wrong. Regarding his behavior out of court, I am skeptical about the allegations but am not well enough informed to claim they’re false (though Hope4More has been invaluable here). My few criticisms of him in court are limited to the occasions where I think he was either confused or employing a deliberate strategy that I found tedious. An example would be the long exchange with JA on the stand about whether she could have known where the knife was if she was in a fog. (I hope I have it right; I’m not about to subject myself to watching it again right now.) Nurmi objected that it came down to the difference between what she might have known then vs. what she can remember now. I agreed with Nurmi. Also, on occasion I thought JM was crabby with his own witnesses, especially Det. Flores. That bothered me, though he may have had sound tactical reasons for it, e.g., to show that he’s just that way, not that he’s abusing the defense witnesses. I realize these are trivial complaints, but I just wanted to show that I don’t think he’s absolutely perfect.